Pharma Insider Says Gain-of-Function Can’t Make ‘Super Pathogens,’ But the Lie Is Being Used to Herd Humanity into Biosecurity State


In this interview with “Dr. Jane Ruby” pharma industry veteran and serial entrepreneur Sasha Latypova lays out her argument for why so-called gain-of-function research cannot make super pathogens, as well as why the recent Project Veritas story centered on Pfizer performing such research is a psyop. Latypova says Jordon Trishton Walker, who was the target of Veritas’ story, was likely planted at Pfizer by the DOD via contracts it made with the Boston Consulting Group, which also employed Walker.

Pharma industry veteran Sasha Latypova—a serial pharmaceutical entrepreneur who spent more than 25 years in the pharmaceutical industry during her career—has been making waves amongst “team reality” over the past several months with her unique insight into the COVID-19 “vaccines.” Or what she and collaborator Katherine Watt literally refer to as “bioweapons.”

Not only is Latypova blowing away the myth that the experimental COVID injections—or “countermeasure prototypes”—are anything but intended to harm people, but she also, evidently, aims to drive a stake through the heart of the “gain-of-function leads to super pathogens” story. Including the latest entry into that narrative saga from non-profit journalism enterprise Project Veritas.

In the interview above with “Dr. Jane Ruby” Latypova expounds on her thoughts regarding Project Veritas’ super-viral (no pun intended) scoop, which has, so far, centered on Jordon Trishton Walker: a director of research & development and strategic operations at Pfizer who graduated from Yale in 2013, and whose supervisor reports to Albert Bourla, the CEO of the pharma giant. (Read more via the post embedded immediately below.)

In the interview Latypova says she was “taken aback” when she heard that Trishton had also worked at the Boston Consulting Group (BCG)—an elite “global consulting firm”—because it reminded her of contracts she had seen on a Department of Defense (DOD) database; this contract in particular between the DOD and BCG for more than $742,000, which was for “strategic communications,” largely in regard to Operation Warp Speed (OWS). I.e. the federal government’s rollout of the experimental COVID injections.

“I was never aware that they [BCG] have a federal division, first of all, and then I saw that DOD contract in the database,” Latypova tells Ruby. “It read really strange,” the pharma insider adds.

Latypova goes on to describe how she was mystified by the contract’s language. The “language in [the contract] was very strange for a business consulting type of document—I was familiar with a lot of them—it referred to things like ‘short-term, short-notice taskers that need to be run to ground. I’ve never heard language like this.”

For a better sense of that language, here is a paragraph from the contract:

In the current environment, short turn [sic] suspense taskers are an almost daily occurrence. Support from BCG is required to assist in running these information taskers to ground. These may include (but are not limited to), information requests, representation of JPEO at interagency meetings, participation in OWS meetings and cover the topic areas of vaccine and therapeutic development efforts, clinical trials and manufacturing. Taskers can be anywhere from short term [sic] (hours) to mid-term (days) and are of such a nature that an individual integrated into the OWS effort is uniquely suited to complete.

Some of those who’ve served in the Navy are likely familiar with these terms, as they are from a software program used by the maritime branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. More specifically, per this official Department of the Navy document Navy Taskers is “a software application supporting the Department of the Navy (DON) semi-structured business process of getting knowledge based [sic] work defined, communicated, collaborated, executed, and managed.”

Link to DOD contract

Latypova describes her understanding of the contract between the DOD and BCG, noting that BCG is “essentially controlling the whole communication flow and also a lot of communications around how are we [the pharmaceutical companies] going to design clinical trials?” She adds that BCG has played a “typical role” for a management consulting firm, making “some sort of marketing promotional material” around the content of the clinical trials.

“So he is placed into Pfizer by the Department of Defense through their contract and his role is some sort of strategic communication,” Latypova tells Ruby. “[M]y question is, was it sort of a setup, was Project Veritas set up to reveal this information? Or did they really catch him in the act, or Pfizer in the act of doing this gain-of-function research?”

In a Substack post on this matter, Latypova wrote “The reason he [Walker] is so freaked out [by] this—he is in trouble not just with Pfizer by making them look like total asses, he is in trouble with his boss—the DOD and alphabet soup. Either that or he is a damn good actor.”

The bigger problem, as Latypova sees it, is that the Veritas story, as well as the Wuhan Institute of Virology story or any other “lab leak” story helps to promote a narrative that is flatly wrong: that nature allows for the creation—even synthetically—of both highly transmissible and highly deadly pathogens.

“What Jordon Walker together with Project Veritas engaged in is creation of…[scientific] clickbait. Clickbait about gain-of-function,” Latypova says. She adds that she doesn’t believe the Project Veritas team was “in cahoots” with the DoD, but was rather “trying to do their job and they stumbled on the story and they thought it was newsworthy because it implicates Pfizer in some sort of manipulation of viruses.” The problem, however, Latypova says, is the whole concept of gain-of-function is a “red herring.”

Latypova also highlights the viral story from October of 2022 centered around gain-of-function research using SARS-CoV-2 at Boston University as propagandistic bunk. She notes that while the topline from the university’s gain-of-function experiment may sound freighting on its face, the results were anything but. Indeed, while eight out of ten of the mice infected with the scientists’ manipulated strain of the virus did indeed die, those mice were actually euthanized; they did not die naturally. It’s also true that the only way the scientists could actually infect the mice was by spraying virus particles directly into their noses and lungs. (A technique that causes pneumonia regardless of what virus is being used.)

Latypova tells Ruby:

Scientifically it is not possible to do what they are implying. They’re doing things in a lab with different preparations that they call viruses, some people believe there are viruses, some people believe there are no viruses. That is beside the point. They are making some sort of preparation designed to some sort of genetic codes, but, in reality, none of it results in what they’re implying to the public. What they’re implying to the public is that this evil manipulation creates some sort of super pathogens, like super lethal and transmissible at the same time. Same… narrative goes… if you vaccinate during a pandemic then you will naturally create these super pathogens. Again, nonsense.

This whole narrative about gain-of-function and engineered deadly pathogens, Latypova says, is to drive fear of viruses. “[T]he only goal of this is to create this whole narrative, that… it’s possible to do [engineer deadly viruses]” and that “if you [the American public] prohibit us from doing it then our enemies will be doing it anyway and they will unleash these pathogens so we need to have pandemic preparedness.” The real goal, however, is to “appropriate trillions” of dollars and build out “the biosecurity state.”

By the same token, Latypova says that all of the fear over biolabs in other countries—including, of course, Ukraine (read more about that via the post embedded immediately below)—is unfounded. On the contrary, she reiterates that all of the biolabs only serve as an excuse to build out the “evil, evil machinery” of a totalitarian biosecurity state.

People are being “snowed with this information” to make them “afraid of this and make [them] compliant with the government grabbing all this money and all this power and removing all the human rights to protect you from scary bioweapons,” Latypova says. Likewise, Latypova says that “passaging” viruses through animals such as ferrets or monkeys is just another “boogeyman story that they tell” to drum up fear.

As for stories that aren’t red herrings, Latypova highlights a FOIA request out of the UK inquiring as to whether or not the country’s Health Secretary delegated its regulatory decisions about the COVID “vaccines” to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The answer, as the excerpt immediately below shows, was that all of the decisions were made solely by the “Licensing Minister.” Who, at the time of the authorization of the injections, was Matt Hancock. Latypova notes he acted as the equivalent of our Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, who was Alex Azar under Trump, and is now Xavier Becerra under Biden.

Link to FOIA document

This “confirms that the regulator in the UK had no authority to review and approve products and didn’t,” Latypova says.

Regarding people who may think all of the control mechanisms tested during the COVID “pandemic” are gone for good now, Latypova says “it’s not over.” In fact, she says, “they continue the lawlessness… [and] the plans to put these… International Health Regulations in place and make them legally binding.” Latypova goes on to say: “[W]hile everyone is distracted by, ‘Oh, let’s go back to normal, everything is back to normal,’ it’s not back to normal. Nothing is back to normal. The… pharmaceutical industry has been destroyed. I can’t trust anything that comes out of them anymore. Nobody should.”

Feature image: CDC Global

(Visited 518 times, 1 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar